Signs that I'm missing out: those two posts. Thanks guys!
Offline
Melbourne, Australia
Glenntai wrote:
Signs that I'm missing out: those two posts. Thanks guys!
HAHA! I really did think you were trolling as it's exactly what Derris-Kharlan and Raptorface did as a side project.
Offline
Hudson, MA
What slays me is that I've seen the name "Raptor-Kharlan" before and thought nothing of it, and by the time you guys brought it up I never made the connection. Go figure, huh?
Offline
buffalo, NY
10k wrote:
The quality of music is an interesting concept.
There is plenty of music in the world that has the intention of being bad/abrasive/jarring/offensive. A lot of the artists producing this kind of music manage to create songs that are very, very bad. In doing so, said artist achieves their goal. Doesn't that make it skilled or good, in the sense that it has achieved its goal?
I think one of the key differences in the landscape of the chipmusic world are these goals. It seems to me that people in different places often end up moving towards a common goal in varying fashion, but that goal will be very different from what a group is subconsciously (or very consciously) working towards in another location. This means that if you start comparing artists from different places against each other too specifically, you end up comparing apples and oranges.
...And while tracking (or coding) skill is (in my opinion) reasonably objective - how many sounds an artist can allude to have in a composition at once, how detailed instruments are, the accuracy of a snare envelope, dat bass, yada yada - a lot of these things can often mean nothing in a live setting. If your goal is not to alienate an audience with your changing time signatures and complex dissonant melodies with 3000 instruments in LSDJ you've blown it no matter how fantastic your tracking is. If your goal is to have a room full of people singing your lead melody and you've composed your drums with nothing but a 808 kit and they're singing... You've won.
tl;dr:
• different groups have different goals.
• tracking/coding skills can be judged somewhat objectively
• ...but that doesn't matter because if often has no bearing on an artist's goals.
• I'M OVERTHINKIN' IT.
Just want to say I'm finding myself really enjoying things that 10k writes
Offline
Tokyo, Japan
celsius wrote:
Analog wrote:WANKERS
Thanks?
I mean, you do enjoy shaking white hot coconuts from your veiny love tree now, don't ya?
Offline
nɐ˙ɯoɔ˙ʎǝupʎs
danimal cannon wrote:
Just want to say I'm finding myself really enjoying things that 10k writes
That's a really nice thing to say, dude. :-)
Offline
Sweden
I firmly believe that there is no objective way to tell if a piece of music is good or bad, or if it is of "high quality." That's not to say that there isn't a cultural (and, in the case of for example rhythm and harmony, maybe even natural) consensus about what is good or bad, but that doesn't mean that those ideas are objective or universal in any way.
nitro2k01 wrote:
Even if the song doesn't "do it" for me, I can tell that whether the musician is skilled or not, and whether the song is skillfully made.
I agree, but being able to evaluate skill doesn't really answer any questions about the music itself (even your own sentiment seems to suggest that skill has nothing to do with musical quality) -- at least not in any objective sense. However we measure (musical) skill probably doesn't have any reasonably objective basis, either. In my eyes it's just a different, equally arbitrary perspective on the matter.
Offline
Bronx, NY
if it doesnt sound like sabrepulse its not good duh
Offline
Ciudad de méxico, MX
Just readed all your posts carefully and gotta say that the discussion is really interesting. Time to wank myself to this 
Have to quote Alejandro Jodorowsky for my comment:
"In art, to have success you have to be the weirdest or the best."
Following Jodorowsky's tweet, the interesting artists (I hate the word "quality") are the ones that somehow put the discussion in another level, by any technical means, or by overpassing the trends that technique dictates, with unexpected originality of any sort, and that can be perfectly good or bad for others. (hence the "quality" status).
Taking the beethoven example, He really re-invented and expanded the sonata form by almost destroying the original idea, added some sick percussion parts to the orchestral music (according to the time, now all the composers can copy that).
Long story short:
Getting technical = good
Weirdness of any kind in your art = good
Getting technical+weirdness of any kind in your art = win (?) (aka beethoven)
Last edited by Analog (Mar 5, 2012 2:21 pm)
Offline
Westfield, NJ
DaPantz wrote:
if it doesnt sound like sabrepulse its not good duh
Offline
CHIPTUNE
I believe in music competitions. Perfect way of seeing what's good and what's not. Because:
You can't separate "objective" from "subjective". What does it meaaan? It's not like you can separate the world in objects and subjects, although that's what most of us do.
Everything is an object. Even you.
But not me. I'm a wanker.
Offline
ad-hell-aide
You heard it here first, folks:
goto80 wrote:
I'm a wanker.
Offline
Chicago IL
man, i was hoping this was gonna be a platform for me to rant about how covers of shitty pop songs are making sure no one ever takes chip seriously.